Also, just FYI, I began posting on Marty's site as it seemed like the time track of the critical movement, there, started and ended w/ Marty and Mike. So months ago, I made a post reminding them of the how many people came before M and M. Marty posted it. Granted, I'm sure I'm not one of the fav posters there, by any means, but that's not the point: I want these new people to understand. So yesterday here was my post:

Brian,Hi This blog has helped many, many people ..no question about it.However, please don’t leave out ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the people beforeMarty and Mike (and I think they’d agree)—many who aren’t even with usanymore. They stood tirelessly, building the road that we ALL walk on. Many were Ex-Scientologists (there wasn’t an Indie movement back then, and hey, maybe they were just done), Then Critics (who created TONS of wonderful web sites, filled with FACTS. The “Critics” were never “in” Scientology. Mark Bunker is a critic, as an example.

I met Mark Bunker in 2000, and after talking with another critic who helped me (Andreas) I soon after escaped OUT of C of $, Forever. Then in2008–arrived Anonymous—who due to the literal volume of them, helped create a safe enough space that TONS more began to speak out, tell their names, write books, etc. And THEN arrived Marty and Mike, and You all.

So please keep in mind this has been one LARGE group effort, done by many people who often are not “Together’ but have assisted in bringing down this insidious organization, pretending to be a “church”.Love to you ALL Tory/Magoo

If I post there, it's a variation of that, or welcoming a new person OUT.I come from a lonnnnnnnnnnng line of "Inclusion". My Mom used to put on parties when wewere kids, and she told us: "It's your job to find the kids that don't know how to dance, andteach um how to dance". Some people *may* find the above post offensive--to me it merelyreminds people of ALL who came before, and should *never* be forgotten.Best,TLC

BTs2Free: The real question is WHY won't Marty tell the truth? (and that includes Rinder).Rinder claimed that he had enough information already to put David Miscavige behind bars. What are he and/or Marty waiting for? The second coming? And I'm not talking about Christ.

Soderqvist1: the answer is obvious!

Jesse Prince: Yeah.

Lawrence Wollersheim: Do you think that any one of these three: Spurlock, Starkey, or Rathbun, when it comes to them going to jail for a long time or giving up Miscavige, do you think any of those guys will eventually either leak, crack or turn state's evidence? Which of the three do you think is the most likely to not…

END OF SIDE A

SIDE B

L: The last question I asked is between Lyman Spurlock, Marty Rathbun and Norman Starkey --

J: The weakest link in that chain is Marty Rathbun and the reason he's the weakest link is because David Miscavige physically abuses him so much.

L: When you say physically abuses, you mean?

J: Beats him.

L: On a regular basis, he will hit this guy.

J: Yeah, and Marty's the one who's already blown from the organization, too. He's already tried to get away.

L: Marty has tried to get away, but Miscavige brought him back and the criminal, they have so much criminal activity on each other that they, Miscavige is worried that if this guy goes out.

Caroline’s LFBD F/N item was: because the truth would set a lot of people free, and it serves their purposes to keep people trapped. I think that’s a pretty good answer, well supported with known wisdom or knowledge, history and current facts.

Marty and Mike have spent their adult lives using Scientology to prevent Scientologists, and wogs, from being set free. Marty and Mike also spent those years using Scientology to victimize people who would set free entrapped Scientologists or wogs by telling them the truth. Their life’s work has required of Marty and Mike virtually constant lying, and even criminal behavior toward their victims.

The universal desire, effort, postulate of Scientologists is to have lies be true. This is the essence and goal of the left hand path, and any ‘ologies, ‘isms or ‘ics on that path.

Hubbard represented this in Scientology, as you know, by “8-8008,” here truthfully restated: the attainment of infinity, that is the first eight, is achieved by the reduction of infinity, or all that is real or true, that is the second eight, to zero, which is the first zero and the building of one's own zero, or nothingness, illusion or lie, from zero to an infinity, or what is real or true, and by that one achieves the attainment of infinity. (Ref. 9ACC 14, 5412CM24, from Scientology’s Technical Dictionary)

One of the first points of programming to “achieve this attainment” is the law that it is carefully observed that the science of Scientology does not intrude into the Dynamic of the Supreme Being. (Fundamentals of Thought) That is the dynamic of infinity, the dynamic of everything, the dynamic of everything’s cause. Scientologists with a clue learn that law extremely early in their indoctrination.

The dynamics do not have the reality Scientologists give them, and can easily be demonstrated as serving malignant narcissists. Scientologists certainly use them to make themselves right and the 8-dynamicless masses, us wogs, wrong, and they justify diabolical behavior as “ethical” with their dynamics. They do all sorts of things to make their dynamics true, but their dynamics are untrue. Everything, on the other hand, where Scientologists are prohibited by Scientology from intruding, cannot but be real and true.

Scientologists know they must not intrude into, or look to, everything – infinity, their 8th Dynamic – for guidance or wisdom in their ethics, their choices or their lives. What they must look to for guidance or wisdom is what is not included in everything, or infinity. And what is not included in everything is nothing, or illusions or lies. By making what is essentially nothing or illusion their guide or source of their wisdom, Scientologists achieve the attainment of building zero into infinity. They don’t achieve anything, of course, everything remains everything, infinity remains infinity, and zero remains zero.

Scientology’s “axioms,” wildly vaunted by Scientologists as proof of their cult or philosophy’s truth and scientificalness, also direct and manipulate their thoughts and actions, and serve their universal postulate. Axiom 35, for example, states:

Hubbard wrote:THE ULTIMATE TRUTH IS A STATIC. A Static has no mass, meaning, mobility, no wave-length, no time, no location in space, no space. This has the technical name of “Basic Truth.”

It is a common “understanding” of sociopaths that truth has no meaning. And the reality is that the ultimate truth has all the meaning in the world.

You’re undoubtedly very familiar with the law in axiom 38 that “anything, to persist, must contain a lie.” This serves Scientology and Scientologists’ universal postulate and sociopathic purposes in two ways. Psycho-philosophically, it justifies their relentless lying about their cult and its founder, since they want Scientology to persist, or keep working. Scientologists are terrified that if they tell the truth about Scientology it will as-is and disappear. Conversely, Scientologists can all “righteously” black PR the people telling the truth about Scientology as liars because the cult is still here and persisting. It is axiomatic to Scientologists that people are lying about their cult because it hasn’t disappeared.

Scientologists constantly program and reprogram themselves with their universal postulate when they proclaim and swear that what’s true is what’s true for them. The only things that can be true for them that are not already true are lies.

The universal Scientology postulate of having lies be true degenerates into the postulate to have some lies be true, or to have even one lie be true. This hopeless postulate, I’m sure you noticed, degenerates into the endless effort to get others to agree that a lie is true. By that agreement, Scientologists postulate and agree, they create reality, that is, they make a lie true. Thank God, of course, they don’t.

The effort you observe by Marty and Mike to rewrite or whitewash Hubbard’s and Scientology’s history is the organized execution of Scientology and Scientologists’ universal postulate to have lies be true, or at least get them believed as true. The acceptance of Scientology and its founder remains Marty and Mike’s “purpose” and “valuable final product,” and this can only be achieved by getting people to believe lies about Scientology and its founder.

Both for personal and legal, as well as psycho-philosophical and conscience-based reasons, I want the truth being true. Actually, I know the truth is true, and don't have to want it or postulate it. This is an essence of the right foot path.

Pretended belief in the truth of a lie is indispensable to keeping Scientology working, and keeping others keeping Scientology working. Marty, Mike and Miscavige share sets of identical lies they all say are the truth: “Scientology works,” “L. Ron Hubbard discovered the only thing that works,” “plus he was a war hero with purple hearts,” “auditing raises IQ a point per hour on average,” “Clear is a state beyond anything man ever before achieved,” “it’s an evolutionary leap called Homo novis,” “OT is even better,” “we’re at cause over matter, energy, space, time, thought, life, you name it,” etc. These and thousands of similar and supporting lies, of course, are used to lure in, keep in, enslave and rip off human beings exactly like us.

Another set of lies that Marty, Mike and Miscavige share and say are true concern Scientology’s wog victims. Marty, Mike and Miscavige all proclaim Hubbard’s Suppressive Person doctrine true, good and knowledge they want others to have, when in fact the doctrine is utterly false, utterly evil and utterly indefensible by anything but more lying, which is no real defense at all.

Marty, Mike and Miscavige all share the lie that SPs are criminal and destructive, when in truth SPs are good people who speak the truth about Scientology despite the hatred and abuse heaped on them by Marty, Mike, Miscavige, et al. Marty, Mike and Miscavige share the same doctrine and system for creating enemies and justifying their attack and pursuit. Marty, Mike and Miscavige also share the same set of enemies, the people they all call haters or worse, the people who tell the truth that might set their underlings and supporters and even themselves free. Marty, Mike and Miscavige share the identical black propaganda on me, and the same postulate to have their lies about me be true. They’ve worked for years in their adult lives to have me criminally prosecuted on their false charges and even imprisoned so their lie that I’m a criminal becomes true. They degrade my image to beast level to make their lies that I’m degraded true, and to render praiseworthy the campaign to destroy me. They have had me physically assaulted, terrorized, threatened with assassination, bankrupted and in countless ways bullied, to stop me from telling the truth.

Because of the nature of the activity of postulating and working to have lies be true, Scientologists, in accordance with a parallel postulate, appoint people who tell the truth their executioners. Hubbard, as you know, wrote in his famous bulletin “What Is Greatness?”

There are those who appoint one their executioners. Sometimes, for the sake of safety of others, it is necessary to act. But it is not necessary to also hate them.

Because of the intensity and massive scope of Scientology and Scientologists’ thirty year war to have their lies about me be true, and because I engage the Scientologists in the psycho-philosophic zone plus the legal zone, where lies and truth are unavoidable issues, they have appointed me virtually every Scientologist’s executioner.

How great is that? Or, isn't that just great!

Marty, Mike and Miscavige actually contracted virtually every Scientologist to appoint me their executioner when they identified and listed the Scientologists as beneficiaries in the 1986 Scientology v. Armstrong contract. Marty, Mike and Miscavige then imposed the criminal-executioner appointment and relationship even more emphatically on Scientologists by listing them again as beneficiaries in their unconscionable and unlawful injunction in 1995. “All Scientology and Scientology affiliated Churches, organizations and entities, and their officers, directors, agents, representatives, employees, volunteers, successors, assigns and legal counsel.” The Freezone. Ron’s Org, the Indies, are all Scientology entities. Along with their officers, directors, agents, representatives, employees, volunteers, successors, assigns and legal counsel they are all beneficiaries, and all have appointed me their executioner.

People with consciences who tell the truth don’t wish for or welcome anyone, let alone a whole army or navy, appointing them their executioner. I certainly have done what I could to get them to withdraw this insane appointment they’ve made, other than stop telling the truth that is. Once a person has told the truth for a while, I think stopping is virtually impossible, but it seems that that is all the Scientologists will accept to end the endless executioner appointing.

Despite Cruise’s star status, and despite whatever his friendship with DM is, DM made Cruise a beneficiary in the unlawful and disgusting Scientology v. Armstrong injunction, and had Cruise appoint me as his executioner.

"What Is Greatness?" was significant to me inside the cult, and I’m sure to many Scientologists. (Scientology site: What is Greatness?) It’s dated March, 1966, which was when Hubbard started the GO, or at least published HCOPL 1 March 1966 “The Guardian.” I think I hung onto “What Is Greatness?” enough that it might have shown up in my ethics file or pc folders, because there were early Internet attacks on me using “What Is Greatness?” as a button on me.

I had a friend, a very smart professional, who said to me, not long after Hubbard’s death, and quite seriously, “You killed him, Gerry.” Of course I hadn’t. All I had done was tell the truth about things that needed the truth told about them when there was the opportunity to tell it. I could see, however, where, following the Breckenridge decision, following his failed ops to silence me, and in the grip of long term malignant narcissism, Hubbard could have seen me as the executioner he’d appointed. He couldn’t come out of hiding, the Scientology v. Armstrong judgment in LA identified him as virtually a pathological liar, and the criminal division of the IRS was using the judgment and case documents to go after him and the organization.

My career as an appointed executioner should have ended there, but DM then appointed me his executioner. He must have thought the truth was killing him, and he went to extremes to suppress it and silence the people telling it. He committed and got others to commit countless pettinesses and crimes to appoint me their executioner.

Marty spent his years in the Sea Org with me as his appointed executioner, and over the past couple of years has newly appointed me his executioner.

Appointing me as their executioner must mean Scientology’s myriad beneficiaries are feeling something different from great, I guess. Postulating me as executioner imputes to me the evilest of intentions toward them and a threat to their dynamics, which means their “eternity.” I’m a living threat to their universal postulate to have lies be true. Their willingness to fight back was triggered a generation ago and we have been at war ever since.

Scientologists war on me because I tell the truth. Yet telling the truth is the only real hope I have to end the war. I want their war on me and persons acting in concert with me to be over, because it’s time, although it always was time. Ending their war is as easy for the Scientologists as not appointing anyone their executioners.

__Edit (add italicized): "Marty, Mike and Miscavige then imposed the criminal-executioner appointment and relationship even more emphatically on Scientologists by listing them again as beneficiaries in their unconscionable and unlawful injunction in 1995."

Last edited by caroline on Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

OK folks, here's the $64,000 question: What jobs do you think Mike and Marty were qualified to do when they left Scientology?

When I left in 1991, after having spent my adult life in the cult, I had a difficult time getting even a McJob. I spent a lot of time and money going back to school so I could get a decent job. I wasn't a senior exec though like Mike and Marty. What do you think they rather would say, "Armstrong is a real schmuck" or "Would you like Fries with that?"

curiosity wrote:[...] I'd like to see Gerry achieve a sense of closure in regard to his personal situation with COS given that he was a trailblazer in the critic's movement. What exactly is it that Marty can do for Gerry, summarized in a short list, given Marty's current status?

1. Communicate to Gerry.

2. Debrief to Gerry, and his legal representatives, on all the lies, black PR, legal actions, intelligence actions, etc. Marty knows about that were perpetrated against Gerry, his attorneys, his family and associates.

3. Execute declarations that contain the facts elicited in the debrief.

4. Make himself available to testify in any legal proceedings to correct the injustices or situations listed above.

I don't really see how Marty communicating, debriefing, making declarations and testifying helps Gerry with his legal problems with CoS. I haven't really looked at what this was all about until now and I admit I have only looked at the basic facts of the case. The basic facts being that Gerry settled his original case against CoS by receiving a pay-off of $800,000. Wouldn't Gerry's legal problems with CoS have ended at that point? Isn't that what "settled" means? The legal problems began again for Gerry when he violated the terms of that settlement. Later, after he was in a heap of poop for violating the settlement agreement, Gerry claims that the original settlement he entered in to was illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable. Then why did he settle, if that was the case? Apparently the courts disagreed with Gerry's claim that the original settlement was problematic, more than once.

So, how does Marty help Gerry prove the settlement agreement that Gerry entered into with CoS where he was paid the 800K, is illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable? It seems to me that would be something a lawyer would have to either prove or disprove, based on what the law is or isn't. All the stuff that happened later stems from the original settlement and Gerry's violation of it. I do not see how Marty truthing out with what he knows about how dirty CoS is, changes the basic facts that would make a difference for Gerry. Access to testimony and evidence of the dirty character and and record of CoS is easily accessed, without any "help" from Marty. In fact, it is the very record CoS has of Fair Gaming people that helped get Gerry awarded the 800K in the first place.

“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” ― Hannah Arendt

Dorothy wrote:Access to testimony and evidence of the dirty character and and record of CoS is easily accessed, without any "help" from Marty.

Thank you. I didn’t know this. Can you please provide that testimony and evidence of the dirty character and record of Scientology that you say is easily accessed.

I realize you’re saying that the access to that specific testimony and evidence is what it is that you’re actually saying you can easily access. I imagine that once the access is easily accessed it could be a different degree of difficulty.

In any case, for a number of legal defenses and claims against Scientology and Scientologists for both Gerry and me, I really could use right now that testimony and evidence it seems you’re saying you can easily access.

Obviously Marty’s testimony and evidence regarding evals, programs, missions, projects, targets, orders, actions, reports, meetings, conversations and all other communications regarding Gerry are part of the testimony and evidence of the dirty character and record of Scientology. So as a top priority, please provide that specific testimony and evidence of Marty, or the access to it that you say is easily accessible. That way we won’t have to continue to try to get his help, which you clearly don’t want us to do.

Dorothy wrote:Access to testimony and evidence of the dirty character and and record of CoS is easily accessed, without any "help" from Marty.

Thank you. I didn’t know this. Can you please provide that testimony and evidence of the dirty character and record of Scientology that you say is easily accessed.

I realize you’re saying that the access to that specific testimony and evidence is what it is that you’re actually saying you can easily access. I imagine that once the access is easily accessed it could be a different degree of difficulty.

In any case, for a number of legal defenses and claims against Scientology and Scientologists for both Gerry and me, I really could use right now that testimony and evidence it seems you’re saying you can easily access.

Obviously Marty’s testimony and evidence regarding evals, programs, missions, projects, targets, orders, actions, reports, meetings, conversations and all other communications regarding Gerry are part of the testimony and evidence of the dirty character and record of Scientology. So as a top priority, please provide that specific testimony and evidence of Marty, or the access to it that you say is easily accessible. That way we won’t have to continue to try to get his help, which you clearly don’t want us to do.

According to a U.S. District Court Memorandum of Decision in 1993, Scientologists "have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia, to destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over trademark law or any other legal matter. This constitutes 'extraordinary, malicious, wanton, and oppressive conduct.' ... It is abundantly clear that plaintiffs sought to harass the individual defendants and destroy the church defendants through massive over-litigation and other highly questionable litigation tactics. The Special Master has never seen a more glaring example of bad faith litigation than this."[5] Rulings such as this have classified the Church of Scientology as a chronically vexatious litigant.

There are court records referenced from the above page which you can access. Did you really need me to find that for you? Scientology's abuses of the legal system and litigious character are common knowledge for us critics. Why do you need Marty to prove it for you? You seem like you are just evading my questions. Are you?

Caroline, I'm not attacking you. If you do not want to answer my question, just think up some excuse, you seem creative enough. You write: That way we won’t have to continue to try to get his help, which you clearly don’t want us to do. WUT? I want you to get help. My point is, if Marty really is the kind of guy you say he is, based upon just a few of your own words:

What we can trust about the intentions of Marty and the people who follow him, is that they support L. Ron Hubbard and are working to expand Scientology.

I believe that Marty and Mike won’t tell the truth because the truth would set a lot of people free, and it serves their purposes to keep people trapped.

Mike and Marty and all Indies have been doing exactly what Soderqvist1 has a concern and asks about, since the beginning of the Indies movement -- ignoring, denying, lying about and hiding the evidence that Miscavige is carrying out Hubbard's policies and command intention.

Then what in the world makes you think he would ever help you? Just because you ask? Marty's going to have a profound change in character just because you post things on a "natter board"? Yet you have made your views about his character perfectly clear. If I wanted my hen house to remain safe, would I hire a wolf to protect it? How would you even know if he offered help he wouldn't end up sabotaging you? Which btw was exactly my opinion of what he did in the Headley cases with his stupid affidavit that all it did was promote the Marty line "It's all David Miscavige's fault". You can read what I wrote about that here on clambake if you care to.

This seems more like a show to me, a campaign of sorts. Either that or I just do not get the logic of it. But hey, who am I to tell you how to spend your energy.

“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” ― Hannah Arendt

Gerry Armstrong wrote:A few good wogs have been urging Marty to do the four simple things I’ve asked of him, or at least saying that it would be good if he did them:

1. Communicate to me;2. Debrief to me and my legal representatives;3. Execute declarations that contain facts elicited in the debrief;4. Make himself available to testify in any legal proceedings to correct the injustices or situations he helped make.

I appreciate the support for calling Marty to do the decent, responsible, right and beautiful thing in the Scientology v. Armstrong war. I’m writing this to correct the idea that Marty has never answered me, as “answer” is understood by wogs.

Scientologists are taught that an answer to be an answer must be a logical answer, and an illogical answer is no answer at all. This is crucial in the Scientology system because Scientologists are also taught to judge people’s stupidity and insanity by “the length of time it takes to get a logical answer,” which Scientology and Scientologists call “communication lag,” or “comm lag.” Back in February, I wrote to Tommy Davis about comm lags and Scientologists’ failure over many years to logically answer my many logical questions or concerns.

The Scientologists I’ve sent my logical communications to over the past thirty years naturally included Marty when he was in the Sea Org, and clearly he saw most of those communications personally. Clearly too, he was included in the great mass of Scientologists that never in all those years offered a logical answer to my logical communications.

Since Marty has been communicating publicly after he says he left the Sea Org, I’ve sent him several logical communications directly, and I still haven’t gotten from him a logical answer. By Scientology scriptural tech and standards, his decades-long comm lag identifies him as almost immeasurably stupid and insane. Hubbard wrote in cult scripture that the longest comm lag he had ever encountered was ten years. And Marty’s comm lag is three times that long.

As I said, however, I don’t use Scientology’s definition and standards for what constitutes an answer to my communications. An answer can be illogical, dishonest, evasive, or anything else; and it’s still answer; just an illogical answer, a dishonest answer, etc. Although Marty’s answer to me was illogical, dishonest and evasive, and by his own Scientology scripture wouldn’t be an answer, it’s an answer to me, and to wogs generally.

I don’t accept Hubbard and Scientology’s tech or science regarding communication lags and the significance or meaning they attach to the length of time it takes to get a logical answer from someone. As Marty demonstrates, people aren’t necessarily stupid or insane when they withhold logical answers to logical communications, and instead respond with illogical answers. Such people can be independent psychopaths, or they can be under orders, as many Scientologists are, to withhold logical answers and give illogical answers.

Between May and September 2009, I wrote Marty several very logical communications that he didn’t answer. His one answer to me was in response to my sincerely and patiently logical letter to him of September 4, 2009, I titled “Apology Not Needed or Wanted.” I told Marty that, contrary to what some people were saying about my needing or wanting an apology from him for the many years of criminal and sociopathic actions he perpetrated against me, I really didn’t need or want an apology from him. I stated fairly clearly what I needed and wanted:

What needs attention and resolution are ongoing black PR, ongoing injustices, ongoing human rights violations, and the ongoing effects of other crimes, which you were involved in and can help resolve.[…]If you stick with the Scientology position that the orders jailing me and fining me for expressing my sincere religious beliefs, experiences and knowledge about this religion, or any other religion, are desirable, moral or lawful, then you support Miscavige on this most key issue confronting Scientologists. On the other hand, if you really want to bring Miscavige to justice, to get justice for the victims of his regime’s injustice, and to actually defend human rights, then these orders and my relationship with Scientology and Scientologists provide an excellent opportunity. My case and the orders against me are all about human rights, and I have fought for this opportunity for over twenty-seven years. The help I need from you is your knowledge of what you were doing, or getting others to do, or of what Scientology was doing, that was not lawful, or fair, or conscionable, or even arguably advisable in its conspiracy to silence, imprison, ruin, and beastify me. If you tell the whole time, place, form and event, my attorney and I will make great use of it to do great good.

I also identified in my letter with sufficient specificity some of the black PR, and several of the ongoing injustices, ongoing human rights violations, and the ongoing effects of other crimes, which Marty was involved in and has the knowledge and ability to resolve.

Gerry, I have a hard time following your communication. There are some critical differences between you and I:a) You were willing to lie and did. I'm not.b) You decided to become a victim, and relish it so much you've continued to be one to this day. Everything you utter is through the prism of a victim and to the degree that it is refracted as such, it is false. I am devoted to helping people from entering the dark, dank dungeon of victim-hood. c) You sold out twenty-three years ago - and are apparently still mad at yourself for the indelible taint it left. I will never sell out. If you made a genuine reach to reverse the downward spiral a-c set you on then I'd be glad to assist in your about-face and ascent. Marty

By saying that he had a hard time following my communication, which was simply written and easy for people of average intelligence to read, Marty implies that my communication was illogical. This is a falsehood that Marty has used elsewhere as well, and other Scientologists use, to justify their total failure and refusal to communicate a logical answer.

Marty’s answer is illogical, in addition to being dishonest and cruel, because he imposes a set of impossible tasks for me to perform before he will assist me to correct the injustices he perpetrated. He doesn’t say how he will assist me, but how I want him to assist me is broadly described in my letter he was answering, and narrowed down to the four easy tasks for him listed above.

Marty says he will know when I’ve accomplished his set of impossible tasks when he observes what he describes as a genuine reach from me to reverse the downward spiral he also says he observes I’ve been set on. This is itself an obviously impossible task for me to perform because there is no dwindling spiral I’ve been set on. Having to reach to reverse what doesn’t exist is the kind of impossible, and frankly degrading and psychopathic tasks victimizers insist their victims perform to stop the victimizing.

Marty’s impossible tasks for me that I must perform before he will consider that I have made a genuine reach to reverse the downward spiral he says I’m on include: accept that lies are true and the truth is lies; stop relishing what I don’t relish; stop being what I am not; stop being what I am, which relevantly includes being his victim; stop uttering everything I utter through a nonexistent prism; stop being mad at myself when I’m not; stop being indelibly tainted by nothing.

Marty postulates me into a dark, dank dungeon of victim-hood, where it is clear he puts his and his cult’s wog victims. He says he’s devoted to keeping people from entering his dark, dank dungeon, which makes sense because people might stumble across the victims he’s postulated into his dungeon. His assertion that everything I utter is through some prism he defines, and that everything I utter is false, is the logic of a psychopath.

So Marty has answered me, and although his answer was dishonest, contemptuous and illogical, it was an answer. It hasn’t changed and doesn’t change what I want and need Marty to do, nor our relationship.

I am not blind to the fact that doing the decent, responsible, right and beautiful thing regarding me and other wogs he has victimized is not in what Marty considers his best interests. It might never be in what he considers his best interests to do the decent, responsible, right and beautiful thing about his victims. Lots of people, I’m quite sure, harden their hearts and never do this thing their whole lives.

It is possible, and not all that hard, for Marty to see that doing this thing is in his best interests, because, of course, it is. Whatever fear it is that has kept him his whole adult life from doing that good thing can be shown to be utterly illusory just by doing it.

I realize that if Marty were to unharden his heart toward his victims, because of its adamantine condition as a result of decades of hardening, it would be a Damascus Road sort of incident for him. It’s very rare, almost never heard of among people with his condition, but I still believe it’s within their understanding and power, and certainly well within Everything’s possibilities.

It is a condition that he really is responsible for. The victimizer always tries to make his victims responsible for their conditions. But the victimizer really is responsible for his condition as a victimizer. It’s an extremely difficult task for the victims of many victimizers to stop being victims. It isn’t accomplished with psychopathic semantics like Marty uses about victims in his answer, while the victimizer keeps right on victimizing them.

For the victimizers to stop being victimizers, that’s as easy as it gets. Victimizers don’t keep being victimizers because stopping is beyond their comprehension or control, or an impossible or even difficult task. They keep victimizing because it serves their purposes, that is, it's pro-survival, and, because it serves their purposes, can even be fun, and a game.

Marty is not too unintelligent to know what it would take – almost a reversal of the impossible tasks he has laid before me. And he’s intelligent enough to know what a Damascus Road moment would be for him. In the Scientology v. Armstrong, et al. war, of course, such a moment for Marty is on the legal stage and quite dramatic.

The reason marty and mike are teasing about telling all and getting DM some prison time is that they are a part of this crime as well. The tech is all about fraud, it was created by a conman and perpetuated by a turd.

There is no date on Gerry’s letter, above. I have no idea if it was written in response to my questions, or posted from something he wrote earlier, re-posted now in response to my questions, or if it has nothing to do with my questions at all. It certainly does not answer my questions, and unfortunately, it inspires even more questions. Do we address Caroline, or Gerry on this thread? Is Caroline responding? Or Gerry? Or is no one responding? Confusing.

Anyway, here goes.

Gerry wrote:Scientologists are taught that an answer to be an answer must be a logical answer, and an illogical answer is no answer at all.

Sorry but I never heard of this. The words "logic" and 'logical" not in definitions of comm lag or insanity. And answers in scientology are anything but logical to me. If what Gerry means by “logical” is answering “yes” to “Do birds fly?”, I’m rolling my eyes. Because that is about the level of moronic “logic” that LRon’s communication training aspires to.

Mostly I do not see what Gerry’s long discussion of scientology’s “communication lag” has to do with his dispute with SMarty. Gerry writes:

Gerry wrote:I don’t accept Hubbard and Scientology’s tech or science regarding communication lags and the significance or meaning they attach to the length of time it takes to get a logical answer from someone.

Neither do I. I do, however, subscribe to common wog etiquette that says it is plain rude not to answer someone and ignore them. Then Gerry writes:

Gerry wrote:Between May and September 2009, I wrote Marty several very logical communications that he didn’t answer.

If Gerry attaches no meaning to length of time answering, then why make this point? Apparently it had enough “meaning” for Gerry to expound upon it quite a bit.

Gerry wrote:I also identified in my letter with sufficient specificity some of the black PR, and several of the ongoing injustices, ongoing human rights violations, and the ongoing effects of other crimes, which Marty was involved in and has the knowledge and ability to resolve.

I still do not understand how Marty can "resolve" this, and it's just another call to resolve it. This is a “no answer” and a “no explanation”. The court already knows about scientology’s black PR and Fair Gaming campaigns and as I pointed out, there already exists evidence of this. According to Gerry’s own website, these “ongoing injustices” are CoS retaliation to do with his original settlement. Scientology’s Fair Gaming practices were very much tied up in the reasons for that settlement, which purpose was to "resolve":

Gerry wrote:http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/introduction.html

In December 1986, in the process of settling my own lawsuit against Scientology for years of fraud, Fair Game, and emotional devastation, I was coerced and tricked into signing a "settlement contract" with the organization, which is patently onerous, unfair and immoral.

How exactly was Gerry “coerced and tricked”? Is he referring to the fact that the 800K he accepted as a part of the settlement helped him to make the decision to sign the settlement agreement? In other words, he agreed to be paid to be silent? Then later he changed his mind and decided that being paid 800K equaled “coercion and trickery”?

I’m terrible at reading legalese, but when I read the settlement, it is very clear to me that Gerry must have agreed to be silent when he signed the settlement, unless he didn’t read it. It is a violation of one’s human rights to be forced into silence. But it is not a violation of one’s human rights if one legally agrees (per legal settlement) to be silent especially when one is also handsomely paid to be silent. Unless you can expound upon the details of the coercion and trickery leveled against Gerry, Gerry both legally agreed to be silent and was legally paid to be silent. It seems like the 800K which he received was meant to help Gerry to continue to be silent, to start a new life and completely move on from his scientology experience. That is the ultimate purpose of all of these large cash settlements. 800K 20 years ago would equal over a million today. Had Gerry remained true to the settlement agreement which he signed, would the CoS have continued to Fair Game Gerry? I think not, because the terms of the settlement were exactly what CSI was buying with their 800K purchase. Did Gerry not know that CoS would come after him with cannons if he failed to comply with the most important part of the settlement, his silence?

I guess after signing the settlement, and accepting the 800K, at some point later, Gerry decided he had made a mistake? Then he decided to violate the “gag” portion of the settlement, at which point CSI came after him with more lawsuits which were in fact within their legal rights, based upon the terms of the settlement. Is this really “Fair Gaming”? or is this what anyone who violates similar legal settlements might expect? If not, what is the difference?

You and Gerry seem to be claiming that the courts (after the settlement and Gerry’s subsequent violation of the settlement) sided against Gerry because of Black PR, but how do I know they didn’t side against Gerry simply because of his egregious violations of the settlement? The latter seems the more likely scenario.

Back to SMarty, who wrote:

a) You were willing to lie and did. I'm not.b) You decided to become a victim, and relish it so much you've continued to be one to this day. Everything you utter is through the prism of a victim and to the degree that it is refracted as hood. c) You sold out twenty-three years ago - and are apparently still mad at yourself for the indeliblesuch, it is false. I am devoted to helping people from entering the dark, dank dungeon of victim- taint it left. I will never sell out.If you made a genuine reach to reverse the downward spiral a-c set you on then I'd be glad to assist in your about-face and ascent.

I don’t know what Marty refers to when he says Gerry was willing to lie. Perhaps Gerry knows. Does Marty think Gerry signed the settlement, all the time lying about “agreeing” to its terms? I.E. Gerry took the 800K and never really intended to comply with the “be silent” portion of the settlement. I have often wondered what would happen to a person who took money from CoS and agreed to be silent and then was not silent. Is Gerry the ultimate example of what happens in this case? What are people to learn from this? Never agree to settlement terms with CoS that you are not willing to keep?

Marty says Gerry sold out. Did Gerry sell out? Gerry does not dispute it. If not, how does he explain walking away with 800K and signing a settlement agreement that includes being silent? Is that what Marty is referring to? Gerry says he was “coerced and tricked” into signing the settlement. I bring it up again because this is a very KEY point and important part of the Gerry story (IMO) that has not been revealed by Gerry. What is the coercion and trickery that the lawyer Flynn allegedly perpetrated against Gerry? Is it possible Flynn thought he did best by Gerry? Is there any link to Flynn’s comments about this? Gerry says Flynn, his lawyer, was also a victim of the cult. Did Flynn sell out as well, because the cult victimized him too? Is getting them to “sell out” (paying money/settling) another way CoS “victimizes” people? Did Lisa McPherson’s family also “sell out” when they agreed to be silent about their civil case settlement, the amount and details of which are also kept secret to this day?

In 1986, there was already an established history that the CoS used gag agreements as part of settlements to silence critics. I do not see how it was possible that Gerry did not know about this history, at the time he accepted payment in exchange for silence. http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyscandals/silence.htm

About this:

Marty wrote: I have a hard time following your communication.

I admit I have the same difficulty with Gerry’s writing. Often times the sentences go round and round or digress with long discussions of topics that do not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand. I also have this same problem with the way Hubbard writes. Incongruous writing is nobody's friend! I think it would help your case if both of you learned how write more clearly and concisely, especially since what you do involves a lot of writing. An excellent book on the subject is Joseph M. Williams “Style, Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace” (2005). Here’s a quote:

Williams wrote:Of course, writing fails for reasons more serious than unclear sentences. We bewilder readers when we can’t organize complex ideas coherently, and we can’t expect their assent when we ignore their reasonable questions and objections. But once we’ve formulated our claims, organized supporting reasons, and grounded them on sound evidence, we must still express it all in clear, direct sentences, a difficult task for most writers and a daunting one for many.

Williams write: ignoring reasonable questions and objections does not garner much assent. It would work so much more in your favor if you treated the people who respond, comment and ask questions as actual people, and not as hecklers or suspected OSA-bots, as you often seem to do.

Anyway Caroline you’ve pretty much been ignoring me and I guess that’s your right but I really hope you will set me straight on all this, especially if I have it all wrong. I sometimes wonder if I'm crazy, am I the only one who has these nagging questions? Or do other people wonder about the same things? If other people wonder about these things, then I may be actually doing you a favor by giving you and Gerry the chance to clarify these points. If support is what you're looking for, it might help.

“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” ― Hannah Arendt

Gerry does dispute it. You are lying. But here's your opportunity: where is your evidence that Gerry does not dispute it?

Dorothy wrote:I admit I have the same difficulty with Gerry’s writing. Often times the sentences go round and round or digress with long discussions of topics that do not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand.

I realize that Gerry is smart, that he doesn't write for the ignorant, and that pretended ignorance is a common pose among Scientologists and their collaborators and people who mean him ill. But you must provide evidence for this black PR on him.

Show me these often times where his sentences go round and round.

Show me these often times where his sentences digress with long discussions of topics that do not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand.

Show me what you call his incongruous writing.

And just so that you know what you are dealing with and what you are attacking, Gerry's writing, particularly his legal writing has been highly praised by competent attorneys. I understand you claim that you are terrible at reading legalese, but that does not excuse lying and black PR.

Gerry does dispute it. You are lying. But here's your opportunity: where is your evidence that Gerry does not dispute it?

I'm sorry, maybe I'm dense but I do not see in the entire letter above, where Gerry disputes it. He does not address the issue at all that I can see. Instead, he points out what it is he thinks that Marty is doing to him, that Marty is demanding impossible things of Gerry. Perhaps he is. If that is Gerry's way of "disputing", fine. But it wasn't clear to me. I gather that based on your answer, that was Gerry's way of disputing. Perhaps this is also an example of the "clarity in writing" that I was referring to. How Gerry was "coerced and tricked" into signing the settlement in which it appears he sold out, is still very unclear to me.

caroline wrote:

Dorothy wrote:I admit I have the same difficulty with Gerry’s writing. Often times the sentences go round and round or digress with long discussions of topics that do not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand.

I realize that Gerry is smart, that he doesn't write for the ignorant, and that pretended ignorance is a common pose among Scientologists and their collaborators and people who mean him ill. But you must provide evidence for this black PR on him.

Show me these often times where his sentences go round and round.

Show me these often times where his sentences digress with long discussions of topics that do not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand.

Show me what you call his incongruous writing.

And just so that you know what you are dealing with and what you are attacking, Gerry's writing, particularly his legal writing has been highly praised by competent attorneys. I understand you claim that you are terrible at reading legalese, but that does not excuse lying and black PR.

In the letter above Gerry writes paragraph after paragraph about communication lag, with incorrect information about communication lag being about "logical answers" (which I could not find a reference for) and I do not see how that is congruent to the discussion, it being about:

Gerry wrote:A few good wogs have been urging Marty to do the four simple things I’ve asked of him, or at least saying that it would be good if he did them:

1. Communicate to me;2. Debrief to me and my legal representatives;3. Execute declarations that contain facts elicited in the debrief;4. Make himself available to testify in any legal proceedings to correct the injustices or situations he helped make.

Congruent to the above (to me) would be:

1. How this helps Gerry2. How this helps Gerry's legal problems3. How this would make any difference in Gerry's case.

What am I missing? I'm sorry if these answers are obvious and I'm just not seeing it. This is a follow-up to the question "What can Marty do about it? You have answered that question. I'm asking, because I have finally looked at the facts of Gerry's case, and I do not see how Marty doing the above, given the known facts about Gerry's case, will change Gerry's legal situation.

I have no reason to "Black PR" you or Gerry. I'm nobody and I don't matter to anyone. I'm just a person with a question, and I don't understand why I can't get a simple answer. I'm not "lying" and that is a cheap way of avoiding my questions imo. What am I lying about?

Should I just stop trying to understand this ongoing war between you/Gerry and R&R? Am I too ignorant (as you insinuate) to ever get it? Do I really seem like the kind of person who "pretends ignorance"? So far you insinuate I'm a dishonest person (on another thread), an ignorant person, and a person feigning ignorance. Which is it, all of the above? to me these are just clever ways of avoiding my questions.

Anyway, I leave it alone now. The ball's in your court. You can stop the personal attack and address my post (above), or continue to ignore me. I don't care either way. I asked what I wanted to ask for my own interest in yours and Gerry's situation, which is fading fast btw. Clearly you have a problem answering me period, because you never do. I thought I'd give it one last shot to better understand where you're coming from. It's clearly not important to you that I understand anything.

I do understand that it would make you feel better to have Marty's confession in hand about any OSA programs run on Gerry, like Marty's done with a few others. But I do not see how it would change Gerry's legal situation. Perhaps the answer is simply not something you would want to publish publicly (i.e., legal strategy). If that's the case I can understand that.

“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” ― Hannah Arendt

Gerry does dispute it. You are lying. But here's your opportunity: where is your evidence that Gerry does not dispute it?

I'm sorry, maybe I'm dense but I do not see in the entire letter above, where Gerry disputes it.

You should have written then, that in Gerry’s letter he did not dispute it. There are ten thousand other places where you will also not see where Gerry disputes it. Here, for example, a letter to Rathbun about Gerry’s manuscript and other things that people working for Marty stole from Gerry’s car. http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/3304. And each time you could find and report back where Gerry in those ten thousand communications doesn’t dispute Marty’s false accusation that he sold out in something will be just as insightful and helpful as this instance is.

Dorothy wrote:He does not address the issue at all that I can see.

Again, there are a lot of places you can see that, and report back not seeing.

Dorothy wrote:Instead,

Instead of what? Clearly, writing what you think Gerry should have written. You are going to encounter a lot of instances in life I think when someone will not write something and you won’t find in whatever he or she does write.

Dorothy wrote:he points out what it is he thinks that Marty is doing to him, that Marty is demanding impossible things of Gerry.

That’s because that’s what Gerry was writing about. I’m not saying that I agree with you that he was writing about exactly that, because he was writing about much more than that; but he wasn’t writing about disputing Rathbun’s black PR that Gerry sold out. Gerry didn’t write what you wanted him to write because he wrote what he wrote.

Dorothy wrote:Perhaps he is. If that is Gerry's way of "disputing", fine.

Again, Gerry was not writing about disputing Rathbun’s false assertion that Gerry sold out. He was writing, as he stated in the subject communication, “to correct the idea that Marty has never answered” him. Gerry provided Rathbun’s answer and explained certain related matters to make it relevant and understandable to both interested wogs and Scientologists. Gerry didn’t dispute the falsehood in Rathbun’s letter that he had sold out. Surely you understand that Gerry could dispute Rathbun’s and all Scientologists’ black PR 24/7 and still not state his dispute in communications that are not about his dispute.

Dorothy wrote:But it wasn't clear to me. I gather that based on your answer, that was Gerry's way of disputing.

No, you gather wrong. Again, in his communication above in this thread, Gerry did not dispute or intend to dispute Rathbun’s lie that Gerry had sold out. That communication from Gerry was not and was not intended to be his way of disputing.

Dorothy wrote:Perhaps this is also an example of the "clarity in writing" that I was referring to.

Yes, I think it is. You were not clear. You jumped to a ridiculous conclusion and based a lot of derogatory post-conclusion communication on it.

Dorothy wrote:How Gerry was "coerced and tricked" into signing the settlement in which it appears he sold out, is still very unclear to me.

I accept that.

Dorothy wrote:

caroline wrote:

Dorothy wrote:I admit I have the same difficulty with Gerry’s writing. Often times the sentences go round and round or digress with long discussions of topics that do not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand.

I realize that Gerry is smart, that he doesn't write for the ignorant, and that pretended ignorance is a common pose among Scientologists and their collaborators and people who mean him ill. But you must provide evidence for this black PR on him.

Show me these often times where his sentences go round and round.

Show me these often times where his sentences digress with long discussions of topics that do not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand.

Show me what you call his incongruous writing.

And just so that you know what you are dealing with and what you are attacking, Gerry's writing, particularly his legal writing has been highly praised by competent attorneys. I understand you claim that you are terrible at reading legalese, but that does not excuse lying and black PR.

In the letter above Gerry writes paragraph after paragraph about communication lag, with incorrect information about communication lag being about "logical answers" (which I could not find a reference for) and I do not see how that is congruent to the discussion, it being about:

This is a total failure to show me what I asked for to support your black PR. You showed me no instance where Gerry’s sentences go round and round. You showed me no instance where his sentences digress with long discussions of topics that do not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand. You showed me no instance of him writing incongruously.

As I said, Gerry stated his purpose for writing that communication in the communication: “to correct the idea that Rathbun has never answered” him. Gerry’s comments about comm lags were congruous with the rest of his communication. The communication was accurate, timely, literary, and, given the nature and magnitude of the Scientology v. Armstrong war, written in good humor.

Gerry wrote:A few good wogs have been urging Marty to do the four simple things I’ve asked of him, or at least saying that it would be good if he did them:

1. Communicate to me;2. Debrief to me and my legal representatives;3. Execute declarations that contain facts elicited in the debrief;4. Make himself available to testify in any legal proceedings to correct the injustices or situations he helped make.

Congruent to the above (to me) would be:

1. How this helps Gerry2. How this helps Gerry's legal problems3. How this would make any difference in Gerry's case.

I accept that. Gerry has the ability to see a fourth equally congruous opportunity, as he demonstrated.

Above, Gerry wrote:A few good wogs have been urging Marty to do the four simple things I’ve asked of him, or at least saying that it would be good if he did them:

1. Communicate to me;2. Debrief to me and my legal representatives;3. Execute declarations that contain facts elicited in the debrief;4. Make himself available to testify in any legal proceedings to correct the injustices or situations he helped make.

I appreciate the support for calling Marty to do the decent, responsible, right and beautiful thing in the Scientology v. Armstrong war. I’m writing this to correct the idea that Marty has never answered me, as “answer” is understood by wogs.

I accept that Gerry does not have to ability to write what you think would be congruent to something else he wrote. That doesn’t mean, however, that what he wrote is incongruous. In fact, in this case, it’s not all that difficult to see that what he wrote is not incongruous.

Dorothy wrote:What am I missing? I'm sorry if these answers are obvious and I'm just not seeing it. This is a follow-up to the question "What can Marty do about it? You have answered that question. I'm asking, because I have finally looked at the facts of Gerry's case, and I do not see how Marty doing the above, given the known facts about Gerry's case, will change Gerry's legal situation.

I accept that. You wrote just today that you’re terrible at legalese, and now you’ve finally looked at the facts of the case.

First please correct the untruths you wrote that Gerry’s sentences often times go round and round, that often times his sentences digress with long discussions of topics that do not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand, and that he writes incongruously. Or support these false allegations with evidence.

Dorothy wrote:I have no reason to "Black PR" you or Gerry.

I accept that.

Dorothy wrote: I'm nobody and I don't matter to anyone.

Sorry, I do not believe you.

Dorothy wrote: I'm just a person with a question, and I don't understand why I can't get a simple answer.

I accept that. It’s not ununderstandable to me.

Dorothy wrote: I'm not "lying" and that is a cheap way of avoiding my questions imo.

No. But it is true that if you were honest I would be more willing to communicate with you, and it would also be a great deal more insightful, helpful and fun.

Dorothy wrote:What am I lying about?

The closest thing in time is your three factual assertions that Gerry’s sentences often times go round and round, that his sentences often times digress with long discussions of topics that do not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand, and that he writes incongruously. I asked you to support these lies and you delivered up little more than evidence you either had not understood what he wrote or were pretending to have not understood.

Once you deal responsibly with these lies, I will be able to provide others for you.

Dorothy wrote:Should I just stop trying to understand this ongoing war between you/Gerry and R&R?

I can’t answer that because I honestly do not believe that you have actually tried understanding it. And maybe that’s what’s needed. Honestly try to understand.

You just said that you’ve finally looked at the facts of the case. But you don’t say what facts they are.

If you’re actually serious about trying to understand the Scientology v. Armstrong war, study the record. We have webbed adequate documents, and you have adequate intelligence, that if you honestly wanted to understand the war you could. You do not need to wait until Gerry or I answer whatever question it is you think will bring you to understanding.

Dorothy wrote:Am I too ignorant (as you insinuate) to ever get it?

No, it’s very easy to get. Rathbun and Rinder get it.

Dorothy wrote:Do I really seem like the kind of person who "pretends ignorance"?

Yes.

Dorothy wrote:So far you insinuate I'm a dishonest person (on another thread), an ignorant person, and a person feigning ignorance. Which is it, all of the above?

No, I’d say 1 and 3. Which means that the problem is extremely easy to resolve and completely in your power.

Dorothy wrote:to me these are just clever ways of avoiding my questions.

And if I did what you want, you can go merrily on being dishonest and pretending ignorance. That doesn’t seem fair.

You’re lying. I’m not ignoring you. Your lying doesn’t make communicating with you easy. But I haven’t ignored you, and am not ignoring you now.

Dorothy wrote:I don't care either way.

I accept that. I thought it was maybe that important to you.

Dorothy wrote:I asked what I wanted to ask for my own interest in yours and Gerry's situation, which is fading fast btw.

I understand.

Dorothy wrote:Clearly you have a problem answering me period, because you never do.

No, you’re lying. I have answered you. In fact I answered you earlier today, and I’m answering you now. As I said, your lying makes communicating with you difficult and unpleasant, and I might quit answering you sometime. But the factual assertion that I never answer you is a lie.

Dorothy wrote:I thought I'd give it one last shot to better understand where you're coming from. It's clearly not important to you that I understand anything.

That’s ludicrous. I already know that you understand a lot, actually more than you let on or present.

I’ve even done my very best in this communication to get you to understand a few more things. When you say it’s clearly not important to me that you understand anything, you are making an inane assertion, the truth of which you can’t possibly know.

Dorothy wrote:I do understand that it would make you feel better to have Marty's confession in hand about any OSA programs run on Gerry, like Marty's done with a few others. But I do not see how it would change Gerry's legal situation.

It’s one of those unsolvable problems. You say you are terrible at reading legalese, which is to say that you can’t understand legal writings or documents, and obviously you present as someone who doesn’t understand, whether you understand or not. How on earth then can Gerry writing more legalese about legal matters to you do anything but add more of what you’re terrible at reading?

It seems to me, the solution to your problem, if it’s real, and if you really want to understand legal matters, or the subject matter, is to learn to read legalese and be honest in your reading.

Dorothy wrote:Perhaps the answer is simply not something you would want to publish publicly (i.e., legal strategy). If that's the case I can understand that.

No, I think Gerry was very clear about what Rathbun can do about it:

1. Communicate to Gerry;2. Debrief to Gerry and his legal representatives;3. Execute declarations that contain facts elicited in the debrief;4. Make himself available to testify in any legal proceedings to correct the injustices or situations he helped make.

I know you say you can’t understand how Rathbun doing those things would help Gerry in his effort to correct the ongoing injustices that Rathbun helped perpetrate. It is so understandable to me that I can’t believe you. Surely you can understand that.

Marty Rathbun is a Scientologist and regards Gerry Armstrong as an "SP," or Suppressive Person. Rathbun has never forgiven Gerry Armstrong for 'Armstrong vs Church of Scientology', which resulted in the revealing of information which "besmirched the good name of L. Ron Hubbard."

"Besmirching the good name of L. Ron Hubbard" is a big deal to Marty Rathbun.

Gerry Armstrong was supposed to shut up and did not shut up. This also upsets Marty Rathbun.